Freedom of religion in the United States is overall beneficial. Nevertheless, even though everyone should have the autonomy to personally practice his own faith, religious beliefs should not be able to serve as universal rationalization for all actions. At some point, religion falls short as legitimate justification. The alternative is a dangerous custom in which religion may be used to support decisions that ultimately harm society.
A public and sensible stance against the dangerous power of religious justification was recently upheld in Arizona, when Governor Jan Brewer vetoed a controversial bill that would allow any business to deny service to others on the basis of the owners’ religious convictions. Critics wisely argued that such a provision would essentially legalize discrimination against gays and minorities. Similar religious freedom bills have been killed in numerous other states. Unfortunately, reasonable judgment has not prevailed in Mississippi, where one bill seems poised for success. “The Religious Freedom Restoration Act” has already passed both legislative houses, and Governor Phil Bryant says he will sign the bill into law.
Mississippi state lawmakers are taking a regrettable stance in backing this bill. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act exemplifies the lengths to which some religiously inclined people will go to resist an imagined suppression of religion. What problem, exactly, is this bill expected to solve? There is no indication that religious freedom is being restricted to any objectionable degree in Mississippi. Yet, from the bill’s title, one is led to believe that Mississippi’s government is attempting to rectify a breach of First Amendment rights. In reality, the bill is an attempt by lawmakers to more tightly entwine religion with politics.
Why else would it also mandate that “In God we trust” be added to Mississippi’s state seal? Though that motto (unnecessarily) appears on United States currency and other government-sponsored paraphernalia, its placement in the seal is probably not to reinforce Mississippi’s place in the Union. Rather, the addition serves as an overt affirmation of Mississippi’s commitment to religious — presumably Christian — ideology. While religious sentiments themselves are not bad, Mississippi is heading down a dangerous road.
Our society often finds it very difficult to deny someone a request that is justified via religious beliefs. This is likely because religion is inherently personal and can be a central influence on someone’s worldviews. It is also perhaps a result of the United States’ longstanding religious culture. Realistically, it would be a breach of religious freedom to deny people the right to base at least some decisions in religious thought. At the same time, religious beliefs require no concrete evidence and may be entirely capricious. Lawmakers must be careful with how they bring religion into the public sphere, as religious justifications do not hold steady across all demographics.
Indeed, religion is already used to justify too many questionable practices. Refusing the teaching of evolution in schools is not an irrational denial of scientific fact if it is supported by religious theories of intelligent design. Female circumcision is still legal mutilation because it is considered a religious custom. And religious reasons are accepted as justification for parents not vaccinating their children. The list goes on. The Constitution rightly seeks to uphold religious freedom, but religion is sometimes able to undermine the law and human rights.
Therefore, it is absurd that this new religious freedom law seeks to further enforce the idea that spiritual beliefs are impervious to secular reason. Simply put, Mississippi has codified intolerance. The Religious Freedom Restoration Act empowers businesses to discriminate in a way akin to segregation during the Civil Rights era. In the context of this bill, businesses could exercise really any form of discrimination, which goes beyond the powers that should be afforded to them. Private institutions should have some say over which clientele they choose to serve. Mississippi’s law, though, provides for simple discrimination against clientele who have committed no moral wrongs. The state has just cloaked bigotry in the guise of protecting religious freedom. A business owner exercising overt prejudice against homosexuals or Muslims is protected because he is legally exerting his “rights.” In fact, that kind of person is the champion of this new bill. Mississippi needs to wake up and realize that religion needs to be pushed aside at times to make for an overall more tolerant society.
Religion at an individual level is fine. It doesn’t matter if a person is a believer or a non-believer in his own personal life — he has the choice to view religion however he wants. That said, freedom of religion can actually affect society in detrimental ways. Hopefully Mississippi’s new law is an isolated incident that may serve as an example to the rest of the country of how discrimination and bigotry should not be upheld.
Alex Yahanda is an Opinion Columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 5 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
